A new approach to procedural freedom in game forms
This paper presents a new framework for ranking procedures in terms of freedom of choice. The concept of game forms is used to model procedures as a structure of individuals' interactions. Sets of outcomes for an individual are represented by the individual's own perceptions of the social states that are generated by the interaction of all individuals. I condense the information given by a game form and by the perceptions of outcomes to two sets for each individual, first the set of perceived outcomes the individual can actively determine and secondly the set of perceived outcomes the individual can actively exclude from happening. Techniques that are known from the literature on ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice are applied to the pairs of determination and exclusion sets. I propose different rankings of game forms in terms of procedural freedom, some of which I characterize axiomatically. The model and the rankings are illustrated by classical examples from Game Theory and Social Choice Theory.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Ritxar Arlegi & Dinko Dimitrov, 2004.
"On Procedural Freedom of Choice,"
Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra
0401, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra.
- Arlegi, R. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2004. "On Procedural Freedom of Choice," Discussion Paper 2004-9, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Gwartney, James & Lawson, Robert, 2003. "The concept and measurement of economic freedom," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 405-430, September.
- Martin van Hees, 1998. "On the Analysis of Negative Freedom," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 175-197, October.
- Heckelman, Jac C. & Stroup, Michael D., 2005. "A comparison of aggregation methods for measures of economic freedom," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 953-966, December.
- Marlies Ahlert & Arwed Crüger, 2004. "Freedom to veto," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(1), pages 7-16, February.
- Wulf Gaertner & Yongsheng Xu, 2004. "Procedural choice," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 24(2), pages 335-349, August.
- Sebastian Bervoets, 2007. "Freedom of choice in a social context: comparing game forms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 29(2), pages 295-315, September.
- Sebastian Bervoets, 2005. "Freedom of Choice in a Social Context: Comparing Games Forms," IDEP Working Papers 0503, Institut d'economie publique (IDEP), Marseille, France, revised Jan 2005.
- Carmignani, Fabrizio, 2009. "The distributive effects of institutional quality when government stability is endogenous," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 409-421, December. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:poleco:v:26:y:2010:i:3:p:392-402. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.